Celebrating 20 Years of Implementing Tribal Treaty Rights: Past, Present, and Future

20th Anniversary of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Tribal-USDA Forest Service Relations on National Forest Lands within the Ceded Territory in Treaties 1836, 1837, and 1842

1 Mikwendaagoziwag

Fred Ackley

Karen Danielson

William “Gene” Emery

Leo Lafernier

Archie McGeshick

Matt O’Claire

James H. Schlender, Sr.

David Vetternech

They are Remembered Introduction Cover Photo: Twenty years ago, member Tribes of the Great Lakes Bibooni-wiigiwaam (winter lodge) designed and Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) and the Eastern Region of the USDA Forest Service (Na- built by community elders, students and Program tional Forest System, Law Enforcement and Investi- Director Wayne Valliere from the Lac du Flambeau gation, and Northern Research Station) entered into Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. Many a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entitled of the materials were harvested from the Chequa- Tribal-USDA Forest Service Relations on National megon-Nicolet National forest using the Forest Lands within the Ceded Territory in Treaties of Tribal-USFS MOU. 1836, 1837, and 1842.

The MOU articulates the Forest Service’s recognition Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa of tribal treaty rights, tribal sovereignty and tribal Indians, Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, Red capacity to self-regulate. It is based on the princi- Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, St. ple of government-to-government interactions and Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin and Sokaogon acknowledges the Forest Service’s role in fulfilling Chippewa Community of the Mole Lake Band of the federal government’s treaty obligations and trust Lake Superior Chippewa. The Tribes are assisted in responsibilities. It recognizes and reaffirms the broad the implementation of the MOU by GLIFWC. One set of relationships between the Tribes and the Unit- of GLIFWC’s committees, the Voigt Intertribal Task ed States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Force has been designated the Tribes’ “keeper of the (USDA FS). process” for ongoing MOU implementation.

The MOU implements gathering rights on National The implementation of the MOU has been successful Forest System (NFS) lands under tribal regulations because of the shared dedication and commitment of and establishes a consensus-based consultation pro- the Tribes and the Forest Service. As the MOU enters cess for management decisions that affect treaty rights its third decade, the parties to the MOU look forward in the National Forests located within the areas ceded to following a similarly successful path. by the Ojibwe (Chippewa) in the Treaties of 1836, 1837, and 1842. It also highlights a shared goal of This report reflects the major accomplishments protecting, managing and enhancing ecosystems that achieved under the MOU over the past 20 years and support the natural resources. offers a glimpse into what the future may hold. The MOU provides several mutual benefits. It helps execute the Forest Service’s Native American policies that address tribal self-determination and self-governance. These policies also direct the Forest Service to implement programs that are sensitive to native be- liefs and practices, as well as encourage cooperation between the Tribes and the Forest Service. The MOU provides the structure to facilitate communication and integrate the Tribes’ needs and perspectives into the management of National Forest System lands. The MOU also directs the Forest Service and the Tribes to work collaboratively, through knowledge exchanges and shared research to promote ecosystem management that sustains and restores native communities and species.

The National Forests included in the MOU are: the Chequamegon-Nicolet, Hiawatha, Huron-Manistee and Ottawa. The signatory Tribes (all GLIFWC members) are: Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Bay Mills Indian Community, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Ke- weenaw Bay Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 1 Tribal Harvest of Wild Plants At its most fundamental level, the MOU includes a code of regulations, adopted by the Tribes, that tribal members follow when they gather wild plants on NFS lands.

Permit Numbers The MOU Gathering Code requires tribal members to obtain an annual tribal off-reservation National Forest Gathering Permit. The permits are tribally-issued.

• 10th Anniversary Report: Each year an average of approximately 1,700 tribal members obtained gathering permits for harvesting wild plants on National Forests.

• 20th Anniversary Report: The number of tribal members obtaining permits to harvest forest products on National Forests increased to an average of approximately 1,900 each year.

• Future: Expect the number of tribal members obtaining permits to increase as members continue to rely on an expanding suite of natural resources that may be harvested pursuant to the MOU. Tribal Iskigamizigan (Sugarbush) Wiigwaas (Paper Birch Bark) The process for Tribes to establish tribal iskigam- The Forest Service and the Tribes have collaborat- iziganan (sugarbushes) on National Forest System ed to identify ways to increase wiigwaas gathering lands involves the preparation of management plans opportunities, and to address tribal concerns about the by the Tribes in consultation with the USDA FS. lack of larger diameter wiigwaasaatigoog (paper birch trees). • 10th Anniversary Report: In 2001, the Tribes and the USDA FS identified 48 sites where tribal iski- • 10th Anniversary Report: Birch bark gathering gamiziganan could be established. As of 2008, six sites were identified on NFS lands. In addition, to tribal iskigamiziganan had been established. facilitate the gathering of wiigwaas before wiigwaasaatigoog are cut during timber harvests, the • 20th Anniversary Report: As of 2018, five addi- Forest Service agreed to provide the Tribes with tional tribal iskigamiziganan had been established maps of proposed timber harvests, listing esti- on NFS lands: Lac Vieux Desert (2008 & 2012) mates of wiigwaasaatig basal area. on the Ottawa National Forest; Bay Mills (2012) on the Hiawatha National Forest; Lac Courte In response to tribal concerns over the lack of Oreilles (2013) on the Chequamegon- large diameter wiigwaasaatigoog, the Forest Nicolet National Forest; and Keweenaw Bay Service agreed to reserve wiigwaasaatigoog (2014) on the Ottawa National Forest. from their proposed timber harvests.

• Future: Expect the number of tribal iskigamiziga- • 20th Anniversary Report: The USDA FS has con- nan operating on NFS lands to remain relatively tinued to provide the Tribes with maps of poten- stable. Changes in weather patterns and the unpre- tial timber harvest locations and the wiigwaasaati- dictablility of the winter-to-spring transition may goog basal area of the stands. This has been such affect this activity. a successful program for tribal wiigwaas harvesters that other agencies have started to supply the Tribes with similar maps.

Work to address the lack of large diameter wiigwaasaatigoog continues. Additional detailed information can be found under “Collaborative 2 Research and Education” and “Wiigwaas Moni- timber under Stewardship Contracts and free use toring” (see page 5, below). provisions.

• Future: Continue to develop an understanding of In 2004, the Forest Service awarded the Lac Vieux research needs for wiigwaasaatigoog and how to Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians better manage for them within the Ceded Territo- a Stewardship Contract, allowing the Tribe to ries and in a changing climate. harvest timber for the construction of a traditional roundhouse (the location of the 2018 annual Fee-exempt Tribal Camping meeting). By nature of the Stewardship Contract, The MOU includes a provision to allow tribal mem- the Tribe completed a high priority watershed bers to use National Forest campgrounds without restoration project, which included road work in paying a fee in the exercise of their treaty rights. To exchange for the timber. camp under this provision, members must obtain a tribal permit. In 2007, the Sokaogon Chippewa Community of the Mole Lake Band was able to take advantage • 10th Anniversary Report: The number of permits of an opportunity to harvest salvage timber in a issued increased annually from almost 90 in 2001 blow-down area. to nearly 200 issued in 2006. • 20th Anniversary Report: With provisions in the • 20th Anniversary Report: The number of camping 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-246, Section 8105), the permits issued continues to increase. Tribes issue USDA FS and the Tribes re-opened discussions an average of 1,200 camping permits each year. about how the Forest Service can assist the Tribes in obtaining timber for domestic, non-commercial • Future: Expect the number of tribal members who traditional and cultural purposes. This led to the camp at National Forest campgrounds to either development of Appendix C to the MOU, called remain stable or increase as interest in camping Tribal Timber Harvest Framework Agreement, during the exercise of treaty rights grows. and the removal of the 40,000 board feet language. The MOU includes a provision to work with GLIFWC and local Forest Service districts to Appendix C provides a step-by-step process for reserve campsites. In 2018, requests for reserva- the Tribes to obtain live-standing timber. It was tions doubled, compared to 2017. The process adopted in 2012. may not be timely, can result in a tribal member not being able to get a campsite, and results in additional work for GLIFWC and USDA FS staff. Tribal members may use Recreation.gov, however this National system does not have the ability at this time to recognize fee-exempt camping. At the start of the third decade, dialogue is beginning about enabling tribal fee-exempt camping through the Recreation.gov system.

Tribal Timber Harvesting The Forest Service has long recognized the tribal need for timber. Whether it be for ceremonial purposes, firewood or general construction, there have been provisions in the MOU that provide Tribes with an avenue to obtain live-standing trees.

• 10th Anniversary Report: A provision in the MOU stated that up to 40,000 board feet of timber per year per National Forest may be harvested by Tribes for construction purposes. However, questions arose regarding the Forest Service’s authority to fulfill this provision. As the parties discussed how to address the issue, the Forest Ser- vice explored programs that allowed it to provide 3 For the first three years following the adoption of Collaborative Research and Appendix C, GLIFWC received five requests for timber agreements, all of which were “hand-fell- Education ing” operations only. Following the “polar vortex” The MOU emphasizes a collaborative approach winter of 2013-2014, the Tribes recognized that to natural resources management. It delineates the the MOU’s Timber Harvest Framework could framework in which monitoring, evaluation and other be an avenue to help provide firewood to tribal research can be accomplished jointly between the communities. This led to discussions of timber Tribes and the Forest Service. An important step in harvest using more efficient mechanized logging this process is information distribution for use by the equipment. Tribes, Forest Service and general public. This cooperation has resulted in several key projects. In 2015, the first tribal mechanized harvest of timber was completed by the Sokaogon Chippe- Waabizheshi Research wa Community on the Lakewood-Laona District Valuable information has been obtained through a of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest cooperative research project on waabizheshi (Ameri- (CNNF). Following the completion of the harvest, can marten). there have been five more requests for timber • 10th Anniversary Report: Waabizheshiwag were via mechanized means. Currently, there are four radio-collared to monitor activity and mortality. A active operating agreements. survey entailing the collection of hair samples was In recent years, the Tribes and the Forest Service initiated to better define waabizheshi distribution. have recognized that there are times when a tribal A journal paper, brochure, poster and slide presen- member needs a small number of live trees, and tation were prepared to share information about in those cases the Appendix C process can be the project. overly cumbersome. In light of this, the parties • 20th Anniversary Report: GLIFWC’s work con- have amended the MOU to allow tribal members tinued during the second decade. In addition to to harvest no more than five live trees for personal work conducted by GLIFWC, there have been purposes without following the Timber Harvest several graduate student projects to study various Framework. attributes of waabizheshi ecology. Three graduate • Future: The parties will continue to work collab- projects were conducted in collaboration with Pur- oratively to develop better processes for imple- due University resulting in one MS thesis and two menting the Timber Harvest Framework. In the Ph.D. dissertations focused on dispersal behavior meantime, numerous Tribes have used the Frame- of waabizheshiwag on the CNNF. In collaboration work to provide firewood to their communities, with UW-Madison, there have been two other thereby offsetting heating costs for tribal mem- graduate projects that have examined the demo- bers. graphic characteristics of waabizheshi populations on the Great Divide Ranger District of CNNF and the Eagle River-Florence Ranger District of CNNF. These studies focus on the role of immigration from the western Upper Peninsula to the two Wisconsin marten populations and how this immigration is essential to waabizheshi viability.

• Future: GLIFWC continues to collaborate with UW-Madison to examine apects of marten ecology. GLIFWC is undertaking a study of the prey base for waabizheshiwag (i.e. small mammals) and how small mammal populations change seasonally and after timber harvests. The results of this study will help inform the USDA FS about the effects of forest management on waabizheshi well being.

4 Wiigwaas (Paper Birch) Monitoring Using this information, GLIFWC formed a wi- Tribal members have expressed concern that the type igwaasaatig working group that is developing of wiigwaas required for making certain products, research ideas surrounding this valuable tree. Be- especially canoes, is declining in today’s forests. ginning with an assessment of site characteristics in the summer of 2018, the working group will • 10th Anniversary Report: Tribal harvesters, recommend further research in upcoming years. GLIFWC staff and Forest Service staff have been working together to better understand the factors In 2015 and 2016, retailers began selling small that influence bark characteristics and availability. birch trees or “poles” as home décor. This prompt- This cooperation has resulted in the development ed significant concerns on the part of the Forest of a monitoring protocol to assess and document Service and the Tribes about the potential for the wiigwaas characteristics. The protocol was tested overharvest of birch poles. In 2017, after discuss- and results were assessed through the Forest Ser- ing these concerns, the parties amended the MOU vice’s monitoring program Forest Inventory and by limiting the number of birch poles that could Analysis (FIA). be harvested under a “small scale” gathering permit. The parties are also evaluating areas in • 20th Anniversary Report: Following the comple- which gathering a larger number of poles might be tion of the monitoring protocol mentioned above, appropriate (e.g. in a timber sale area). the Northern Research Station and GLIFWC pub- lished the results in the Journal of Forestry in a • Future: The wiigwaasaatig working group will paper titled “Using Traditional Ecological Knowl- continue to meet and develop research ideas. In edge as a Basis for Targeted Forest Inventories: the meantime, GLIFWC member Tribes have Paper Birch (Betula Papyrifera) in the US Great requested an assessment of “all issues surrounding Lakes Region.” wiigwaasaatig at all life stages,” which is in the planning stages. To further understand the status of large diameter wiigwaasaatig in the Ceded Territories, GLIFWC member Tribes continued to work with the FIA Program and the Northern Research Station to produce a General Technical Report titled “Paper Birch (wiigwaas) of the Lake States, 1980-2013,” as well as a Resource Bulletin titled “Forest Re- sources within the Lake State Ceded Territories 1980-2013.”

5 Celebrating 20 Years of Implementing Tribal Treaty Rights

1836 - Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa at Washington, D.C. 1837 - Treaty with the Chippewa at St. Peters, WI 1842 - Treaty with the Chippewa at La Pointe, WI President Zachary Taylor issued an executive order in 1850 to move Ojibwe Indians living east of the Mississippi 1850 - River to unceded lands 1850 - Attempted removal of Ojibwe in 1850-51 which resulted in the Sandy Lake Tragedy — removal failed 1854 - Treaty with the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior and Mississippi, La Pointe, WI 1971 - People v. Jondreau decision (MI) 1972 - State v. Gurnoe decision (WI) 1981 - U.S. v. Michigan (Fox decision) 1983 - Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of WI (7th Circuit “Voigt” decision) 1983 - Formation of Voigt Intertribal Task Force 1984 - Formation of GLIFWC 1991 - Final decision in LCO v. WI (Parties do not appeal) 1992 - FS/GLIFWC/Voigt discussions begin regarding gathering and treaty rights 1993 - MOU negotiations begin 1998 MOU Signed 1998 - U.S. Representative Obey’s concerns prompt Forest Service to conduct public comment period 1999 - Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Supreme Court decision 1999 - Forest Service completes comment period, MOU finalized 2000 - Campground Fee and Length of Stay Restriction Exemption Agreement 2000 - First Annual Tribal/FS MOU meeting at Red Cliff 2000 - MOU recognition by Harvard University — “Honoring contributions in the governance of American Indians” 2000 - First two sugarbush management plans completed — Bay Mills and Mole Lake 2001 - Tribal elders, GLIFWC staff and FS — identified 48 sites for tribal sugar bushes 2003 - First TEK Birch Protocol developed for FIA Surveys 2003 - GLIFWC proposed amendment dealing with timber for construction purposes (40,000 board feet) 2004 - First timber harvest: Ottawa NF works with LVD on a stewardship contract, red pine logs for LVD roundhouse 2006 - Revised TEK Birch Protocol 2007 - Forest Service R9 Indigenous Earth Walker Award presented to GLIFWC Chief Warden Fred Maulson Regional Forester issues free-use permit to Mole Lake for salvage of 40,000 board feet from the Quad County 2007 - tornado area on the CNNF 2008 - MOU 10th Anniversary celebration and annual meeting at Red Cliff 2008 - First Camp Onji-Akiing at Camp Nesbit, Ottawa National Forest 2009 - Minwajimo Conference: “Telling a Good Story” GLIFWCs first 25 years Great Divide District CNNF works with St. Croix Tribe to mark 200 Red Pine trees for a ceremonial building — 2010 - never implemented 6 2011 - Eastern Region Honor Award: GLIFWC, DNR and FS for “Collaborative Management of Pine Marten in WI” 2011 - Bay Mills request for harvest of house logs — not completed First significant MOU Amendment (Appendix C — Timber Harvest Framework (THF)) — removed 40,000 board 2012 feet language 2012 - Fond du Lac becomes a signatory to the MOU Per request from Bad River, an area closure was implemented at St. Peter’s Dome and Morgan Falls area for a tribal 2012 fasting ceremony 2012 - Per THF process, Mole Lake requested logs for residential purpose on Lakewood/Laona District — project dropped 2012 - Per THF process, Bad River requested cedar salvage on Great Divide — project dropped 2012 - Per THF process, Lac du Flambeau requested hand cutting firewood area — partially implemented 2012 - Per THF process, Bay Mills requested logs for residential purpose on east side of Hiawatha — project dropped Per THF process, Lac du Flambeau request amendment to previous agreement for ceremonial harvest of live cedar 2013 trees — resulted in harvest of bark from 24 cedar trees Publication: “Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a basis for Targeted Forest Inventories: Paper Birch (Betula 2014 Papyrifera) in the U.S. Great Lakes Region” Northern Research Station and GLIFWC 2014 - Tribes co-designate 11 USFS RNAs as Tribal RNAs 2014 - Per THF process, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community requested firewood cutting area — project not implemented 2014 - Forest Service Groundwater Directives Tribal Listening Session Publication: “Forest Resources within the Lake States Ceded Territories 1980-2013” Northern Research Station 2015 Bulleting NRS-149 Modeled distributions of 12 tree species in the Lakes States Ceded Territories, including Common names, Latin 2015 names and Ojibwe names Per THF process, Mole Lake requested area for mechanized harvest of firewood, operating agreement signed — 2015 completed. 2015 - Ottawa NF begins discussions with LVD regarding Crooked Lake 2016 - Worked with LCO for harvest of salvage timber from 2014 blowdown event on the Great Divide District Commission Order changing the Model Code for more restrictive gathering of birch poles under a general gathering 2017 - permit (reduces number from 75 to 5). Put in place a provision for Large Scale Birch gathering permit as coordinated among the FS, GLIFWC and Tribes. 2017 - Per THF process, Mole Lake requested area for mechanized harvest of firewood — operating agreement signed Per THF process, LDF requested mechanized harvest of live trees, operating agreement signed — project not 2017 complete, tribe interested in extension. 2017 - GLIFWC becomes a partner in the Northern Institute for Applied Climate Science THF process agreement with Bad River to remove harvested timber from Parking Lot Expansion near Morgan Falls/ 2017 - St. Peter’s Dome. Per THF process, Red Cliff requested and mechanized operating agreement for fuelwood, operating agreement 2017 signed — project in progress Enbridge Line 5 Scale Special Use Permit renewal Tribal Listening Session conducted. Parties agree to analyze Oil 2017 - Pipeline (Line 5) under provisions of the MOU related to Forest Service decision-making — project in progress First Large Scale Birch Pole Harvest Permit issued — permit issued, tribal member harvested in wrong 2018 place resulting in tribal court action against the member Per approval of the VITF, FS and GLIFWC staff began additional analysis under the framework of the 2018 - MOU in regards to Enbridge Line 5 Special Permit Renewal 2018 - Per request from GLIFWC Tribes, an area closure was implemented for the first ceremonial tribal elk hunt

7 Logging Impacts on Understory Plants Conservation Education GLIFWC and Forest Service staff jointly initiated a The Forest Service and the Tribes share a commit- long-term study to document the impacts of selective ment to educate youth about treaty rights activities logging on understory plants, particularly whether and and opportunities to exercise those activities within when, the understory plants recover to pre-logging NFS lands. conditions. • 10th Anniversary Report: The Forest Service, • 10th Anniversary Report: Baseline data on un- GLIFWC and tribal organizations received a Con- derstory plant cover and species richness was servation Education Grant in 2000 that served to collected and logging treatments were completed. host workshops in which tribal elders taught tribal Data will continue to be collected for another two youth Traditional Ecological Knowledge. These decades or longer. workshops included plant identification and use, specifically, making baskets from aagimaak (black • 20th Anniversary Report: Sampling of the loca- ash), ricing sticks from giizhik (white cedar), tions continues. Following a preliminary analysis cordage from wiigob (basswood), syrup from that showed very little variation in herbaceous ziinzibaakwadwaaboo (maple sap), and jam from communities, and due to the high-intensity sam- asasaweminan (chokecherries). pling effort, sampling was reduced to once per year alternating between spring and summer • 20th Anniversary Report: A collaborative effort seasons. between GLIFWC and the USFS, Camp Onji- Akiing (From the Earth) is a cultural outdoor • Future: Sampling at all four sites will continue adventure-based summer camp that focuses on indefinitely, however in the short term, plans are natural resource career exploration and treaty to produce some preliminary results documenting rights, while fostering connections to all of our the changing herbaceous communities using the relatives, human and non-human. This camp, first 20 years of data. which began in 2009 with nine tribal youth has increased in popularity and attendance has grown to 40-50 youth. It is held at Camp Nesbit, in the heart of the Ottawa National Forest in Sidnaw, Michigan.

• Future: Camp Onji-Akiing has increased in popularity since its inception and continued growth is expected.

8 Collaborative Law Enforcement Forest Planning and Decision-Making GLIFWC Conservation Officers are authorized to The MOU includes a procedural framework for enforce the conservation codes that are part of the consultation regarding National Forest planning and MOU. In addition, the MOU contains a Tribal decision-making. Self-Regulatory Agreement that provides for the Tribes to enforce any violations of the MOU in tribal • 10th Anniversary Report: Consultation between courts. the Tribes and the Forest Service was successful during Forest Service plan revisions. Tribal concerns and issues were properly addressed, often with the incorporation of new language into Forest Plans.

Consultation has also been successful regarding the design and implementation of the site-specific projects and programs, including proposed timber harvests and emergency land management mea- sures to address forest tree diseases and pests (e.g. oak wilt and emerald ash borer).

• 10th Anniversary Report: GLIFWC’s Conserva- • 20th Anniversary Report: Regular consultation tion Enforcement Division works cooperatively has continued between the Forest Service and the with other government agencies, including the Tribes. Three specific tribal-only listening ses- Forest Service. GLIFWC wardens and Forest sions were held on the following topics: USDA Service law enforcement officers have developed Sacred Sites policy-2011, Proposed USDA FS a strong working relationship. They conduct joint groundwater directive-2014, and Enbridge Line 5 patrols and share equipment. They have also in- Special Use Permit reauthorization-2017. creased field communication by coordinating their radio frequencies. Most importantly, they meet Standardized language regarding the Ceded Terri- regularly to reaffirm and bolster their partnership. tories and treaty rights has been incorporated into most forest plans as well as significant site-specif- • 20th Anniversary Report: In 2016, GLIFWC and ic projects. the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest enact- ed a Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement, In 2017, GLIFWC, at the request of its member formalizing their mutual enforcement efforts in Tribes, became a partner in the Northern Institute Wisconsin. of Applied Climate Science (NIACS), which is associated with the Forest Service’s Northern Re- As a result, GLIFWC wardens and Forest Service search Station. This relatively new partnership has law enforcement officers have expanded joint pa- already begun to infuse tribal cultural perspectives trols on NFS lands. The two agencies collaborated into climate adaptation initiatives. For example, to eradicate multiple marijuana grows including GLIFWC and NIACS, with other tribal and inter- some of the largest found on NFS lands in Wis- tribal partners, are developing a Tribal Adaptation consin, thereby enhancing public safety. Also, Menu that will assist Tribes in planning for and due to the increased use of campgrounds by tribal adapting to a changing climate in culturally ap- members exercising their treaty reserved rights, propriate ways. The drafters also hope that it will GLIFWC wardens have increased their patrols in bring Traditional Ecological Knowledge into the and around Forest Service campgrounds. Forest Service’s plans and decisions about climate adaptation. • Future: GLIFWC law enforcement looks to continue joint patrols and expand Cooperative Law The Tribes and the Forest Service are analyz- Enforcement Agreements. The parties will contin- ing impacts (past, present and future) of an oil ue to explore collaborative training opportunities pipeline that crosses the Chequamegon-Nicolet to strengthen teamwork. Finally, the parties will National Forest. The pipeline was installed in the maintain and improve their working relationships 1950s and permitted without consideration of to ensure the safety and protection of harvesters tribal treaty rights; the joint analysis will attempt and to enhance the conservation of the Forests. to characterize those impacts, the impact of the existing pipeline on treaty rights, and the risk and impacts of a potential spill. The parties anticipate 9 that this analysis will inform the Forest Service’s staff have been afforded opportunities to attend decision about whether or under what conditions Forest Service training sessions to learn about to re-issue the special use permit for the line. Forest Service practices and administrative proce- dures. • Future: Recent conversations suggest that analysis and consultation on permitting and management Besides formal training, the parties strive to in- decisions may be an important tool as the parties crease cultural understanding and mutual respect consider actions that impact the ecosystems that during all of their meetings and interactions. As support treaty reserved resources. These include Forest Service and tribal staff change, continued climate change adaptation, among others. cultural training will be crucial for maintaining and strengthening relations between the Tribes Special Closures and the Forest Service. In 2012, the MOU was amended to allow the Tribes or the Voigt Intertribal Task Force to request that the • 20th Anniversary Report: The close working re- Forest Service temporarily close a part of a National lationship and the commitment to consider treaty Forest in order to provide privacy for Tribes engag- rights when making decisions has resulted in ing in traditional or cultural activities. This provision many opportunities for Forest Service personnel has been invoked twice, both times on the Chequa- to be exposed to cultural teachings. For example, megon-Nicolet National Forest – once for a fasting Forest Service personnel participated in listening ceremony in 2012 and once for a tribal harvest camp sessions on groundwater, oil pipelines and sacred in 2018. sites. All of these included tribal perspectives and teachings that pertain to those topics. Cultural Training • 10th Anniversary Report: Forest Service per- Routinely, new line officers are provided back- sonnel have had several opportunities to attend ground information on the MOU and working workshops to learn more about treaty rights and with Tribes. One tool provided to line officers, as Ojibwe culture. In addition, training sessions have well as all USDA FS personnel are a set of DVDs occurred at many of the Forest Service District and other educational materials produced by offices. Similarly, tribal members and GLIFWC GLIFWC on Ojibwe Treaty Rights and the Sandy Lake Tragedy, to name a few.

10 • Future: Formal cultural training is important to Traditional Ecological Knowledge introduce new Forest Service personnel to the The signatory Tribes and GLIFWC staff are working MOU, treaty rights and the cultural perspectives to better represent traditional knowledge holders and of the Tribes. It is also important to include Forest incorporate Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Service personnel in less formal opportunities in management, planning and decision-making on NSF which they can be exposed to the perspectives that lands. One example is the development of a Tribal inform tribal positions on particular issues. Adaptation Menu in partnership with NIACS (see page 9, above). The Future The parties agree that the MOU has been success- Omashkooz (Elk) Restoration ful due in large part to the hard work and dedication Tribes and GLIFWC have and will continue to work of both parties. Agencies and Tribes from across closely with the Forest Service and other agencies to the country have expressed an interest in using the help re-establish a healthy omashkooz population in MOU as a model of cooperation, co-management and Wisconsin. That population reached a level in 2018 cultural exchange. It has provided a foundation that that allows a hunting season – one that will provide is both solid and flexible as the parties confront new the Tribes with up to five bull elk for their communi- challenges and seek to improve the condition of treaty ties. protected natural resources on NFS lands. As the parties look to the future they see some of the issues Management Actions and Decision-Making they will be addressing, and they are descibed below. The analysis of Line 5 (see page 9, above) marks the Others will only become apparent as the future un- first time that this portion of the MOU has been used folds. We hope to be reporting on those in 2028! to perform a joint, in-depth exploration of a Forest Service decision that may impact tribal treaty rights. Future management actions, for example, those that respond to climatic changes and their attendant impacts, will benefit from ongoing coordinated analysis and sharing of cultural knowledge and perspectives.

11 Notes

12 Notes